Right of Sikmidar Ends With Death—No Adverse Possession Without Hostile Animus: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Title of Recorded Raiyats Over Unauthorized Occupants

“Occupancy By Descendants Of Sikmidar Without Custom Equals Trespass”, In a significant pronouncement Jharkhand High Court in Second Appeal No. 457 of 2003, upheld the ownership and title rights of recorded raiyats over disputed agricultural land, dismissing a plea of adverse possession pressed by occupants recorded merely as sikmi dakhaldars. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava dismissed the appeal filed by Lal Bihari Kumhar and others against Dhanmati Devi and others, ruling that “possession without heritable sikmi rights and without proof of hostile animus amounts to trespass.”

The judgment, relying on settled precedents and principles of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, firmly shut the door on unauthorized occupation based on bare possession and ancestral occupancy, thus reinforcing the sanctity of revenue records and legitimate title under tenancy law.

The genesis of the dispute traces back to raiyati land recorded in the name of Raghu Kumhar, the plaintiffs’ predecessor, under Khata No. 325. Though remarks columns of settlement records reflected names of Ganga Ram and Radha Nath Kumhar as sikmi dakhaldars, the plaintiffs filed suit in 1988 seeking declaration of title and possession after the defendants, descendants of the sikmi dakhaldars, refused to part with the agricultural produce or acknowledge the plaintiffs’ title.

While the trial court dismissed the suit accepting the defendants’ adverse possession plea and citing bars under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, and Section 106 of the T.P. Act, the appellate court reversed the decision, categorizing the defendants as “trespassers,” leading to the present second appeal.

The pivotal legal issue was framed as:

“Whether the learned first appellate court erred in construing the defendants as trespassers despite their long-standing possession claimed under village custom?”

Justice Srivastava provided a categorical answer, rejecting the adverse possession argument and the supposed bar on maintainability. The Court opined:

“A Sikmi right is not heritable in absence of proof of custom. Defendants’ forefathers may have enjoyed permissive possession, but law mandates proof of hostile animus for adverse possession, which is completely absent.”

On Adverse Possession and Heritability

Quoting the Supreme Court’s guiding principle in Roop Singh v. Ram Singh (2000) 3 SCC 708, the Court noted:

“Permissive possession cannot metamorphose into adverse possession unless the occupant openly repudiates the ownership of the titleholder to their knowledge, which has not been done here.”

Reaffirming the Patna High Court’s ruling in Johan Uraon v. Sitaram Sao (AIR 1964 Patna 31), Justice Srivastava ruled:

“The interest of an under raiyat with occupancy status is not heritable under law unless sustained by custom. In absence of proof of such custom, occupation post death of sikmidar equals trespass.”

The Court dismissed the argument of statutory bar, clarifying: “Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act does not preclude a recorded raiyat from seeking recovery of possession from trespassers. Similarly, Section 46(1)(a) of the C.N.T. Act, prohibiting lease beyond five years, has no application where the defendants never claimed to be lessees. Section 106 of the T.P. Act, dealing with tenancy notice, is irrelevant where possession is unlawful.”

Summarizing its conclusion, the Court observed: “Revenue records are sacrosanct indicators of title. The remarks column entry of sikmi rights does not grant ownership. Absence of rent receipts from defendants, non-challenge of survey entries, and failure to prove heritable custom cumulatively render the defendants trespassers liable to ejectment.”

Accordingly, the second appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court’s decree in favor of the plaintiffs was upheld.

This decision by the Jharkhand High Court fortifies the principle that mere long possession cannot be a substitute for title. The judgment upholds the integrity of revenue records and establishes a high threshold for claiming adverse possession, thereby discouraging illegal land grabbing under the cloak of historical occupancy.

Date of Decision: 17 July 2025